Different visions of America's road ahead

Barack Obama makes his way to board Air Force One 22 October 2012  Has Barack Obama led the world the way he promised?

This debate is about that most critical of subjects - America's power and strength, and how it should act to change the world.

Part of the wave of optimism that President Barack Obama rode to power four years ago was the promise that he would end former President George W Bush's wars, and rebuild America's reputation in the world.

Many Americans may be more immediately concerned with the state of the economy, but there are few subjects quite as important as this.

After George W Bush

It is why there is so much focus on this election in the rest of the world - the two candidates are vying to control the most powerful military machine the world has ever known, a country that has repeatedly influenced the course of history in the last 100 or so years, that still has more diplomatic clout than any other nation.

A BBC opinion poll of nearly 22,000 people in 21 countries suggests the rest of the world hopes Mr Obama stays at the helm. Curiously, the only country where he doesn't come out on top is Pakistan - where most didn't have a preference.

Of course, Mr Obama will stress that he has been tough in America's defence. He'll talk about the killing of Osama Bin Laden, and claim he has kept the US safe.

But not tough enough, according to his opponent. Republican challenger Mitt Romney's central case is that Mr Obama never gives a strong lead and he's repeatedly apologised for the US.

This common charge from the right springs directly from Mr Obama's attempt to undo the works of Mr Bush. He seems to believe that many had come to see the US as a swaggering bully, which said "my way or the highway", even to allies.

Many Americans have very little idea of how the US was seen abroad during the Bush years and for merely understanding this, Mr Obama is suspect to some people.

He has tried to make friends with those who might be hostile, and to create policy alongside allies. Implicit in his approach is that the US may still be the most powerful country in the world, but it is not the only one that matters. To some, that is simply weakness.

There is a debate about how well the Obama doctrine has worked, from Russia to the Muslim world, from Iran to China. There are not many obvious triumphs that spring from his more open-handed approach.

But to some critics, the details are merely a toxic by-product of what they consider the central betrayal. They feel Mr Obama does not agree with them that the US is a country with a unique and almost sacred destiny to lead the world.

Some think that Mr Romney wouldn't be very different to Mr Obama when it came to foreign affairs. But tonight two very different visions will be on offer.

Mark Mardell, North America editor Article written by Mark Mardell Mark Mardell North America editor

More on This Story

US Presidential Election 2012


This entry is now closed for comments

Jump to comments pagination
  • rate this

    Comment number 31.

    .random alias (29),

    "... I'll vote for cautious and observant. ..."

    Unto each his own.

    "... Obama's Nobel Peace Prize is well deserved."

    Tell that to the civilians killed by the drone strikes he authorizes.

  • rate this

    Comment number 30.

    29. (me)
    To elaborate: Active/proactive foreign policy includes diplomacy. What is disparagingly and inaccurately called "leading from behind" is more like "leveraging" our power and influence, and recognizing that the nations of the world, working together, have a better chance to bring peace and justice. Again, Bush/Cheney's Iraq war shows the perils of going it alone.

  • rate this

    Comment number 29.

    23.Chryses "... a criticism ... President Obama... his Foreign Policy tends to be overly cautious, and observant and reactive rather than involved and active."

    Don't forget what George W. Bush's active involvement got us! I'll vote for cautious and observant. Obama's Nobel Peace Prize is well deserved. I wouldn't characterize his foreign policy as reactive; it has significant proactive elements.

  • rate this

    Comment number 28.

    What didn't come out in the debate is a discussion of how much US foreign/military policy strengthens or weakens the US economy. Many Americans want to know why we should build roads and schools in Afghanistan and Iraq whilst neglecting them at home. By what priority does the US spend so much on its military when its citizens have so many unmet needs?

  • rate this

    Comment number 27.

    Foreign policy may be what's most important for non Americans. For those of us who live in the USA the issue is more basic. What is the role of government in our lives? Obama believes government is the answer to every issue, and thus wants a policy and agency for every station in life. Romney will say whatever he thinks his audience of the moment wants to hear. Unfortunately one of them will win.


Comments 5 of 31



BBC © 2014 The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.